Lars Wilson
2008-02-03 15:05:38 UTC
We've gotten to the point, with sufficient excavations now in place since
the 1950's to pretty much establish the timeline for the Israelites from the
XVIIIth Dynasty of Egypt down through into the Persian Period and the reign
of Darius II, the last Biblical reference from the OT to the ancient
timeline. But I wanted to note that there is a gap in the interpretation
of the evidence of those who are pro-Biblical and those decided
anti-Biblical. But that is only because of the nature of the evidence
itself and archaeology not being an absolute "science" though that term is
often applied to this field.
Absolute sciences are like math and astronomy, biology, etc. Archaeology is
not like those disciples. It is a pseudo-scientific field, sort of half way
between science and anthropology, with a couple of related absolute sciences
connected to it, such as ancient astronomy and RC14 dating, etc.
But of note, because there is a gap in how things are interpreted, both the
pro and anti-Biblicalist can find their own "comfort level" with the
identical evidence, since so much evidence needs interpretation and can be
subjective. Here are a few broad cases in point.
1. Kathleen Kenyon, a renown archaeologist, based on her digging up
Jericho, opined that the Israelites destroyed LBA Jericho between 1350-1325
BCE. Even though a respected archaeologist and quoted from now by many
others, that dating has not effected a focus on Amenhotep III in association
with the Exodus 40 years earlier. This dating, however, would automatically
redate Solomon into the early 9th century period. But this is not done.
Instead, conventional dating based upon the non-archaeological Assyrian
timeline fixed by a single eclipse occurring in 763 BCE is used to date
Solomon and then the Bible criticized for being revised. Pro-Biblicalists
who date Solomon and the Exodus in line with Kenyon's dating though, are
encouraged from the archaeological reference by Kenyon and other
archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein who date the buildings of Solmon to
the "early 9th century BCE."
Point being that depending on what you accept or reject as far as
archaeology goes, provides a comfort zone for continuing to accept or not
accept some things in the Bible as accurate history. Even though the
archaeological evidence is in the same in both cases.
So it is a subjective thing. Those anti-Biblicalists who need Solomon and
David to be a myth, ignore Kenyon's reference and date Solomon too early,
earlier than the evidence date him. Those who agree with Kenyon's dating
end up dating Solomon later, which does confirm Solomon was a great king and
built great buildings. Both groups go forth feeling content they have the
truth, but only because both choose to accept or reject certain
archaeological evidence. Which, of course, is their choice, but as a
result, you still have polarity on two sides of the fence.
The DIFFERENCE now is, though, that we have more archaeological data and
specifics. Even RC14 dating supplement archaeological findings to key
Biblical events, such as the fall of Jericho or when the major palaces were
built at Megiddo. Thus what I call the "archaeological timeline" is rather
set and consistent. But comparisons with the Bible's timeline varies based
on interpretation of both the secular timeline and/or the Biblical timeline,
meaning you get different results.
Subjectively, therefore, it is interesing that now the more specific
archaeological findings in place are starting to do more for confirming the
reality for pro-Biblicalists than before. That is what is significant.
That is, significant for those who have the archaeologically compatible
Biblical timeline.
Case in point, again, Kenyon. She dates the fall of Jericho by the
Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE, with or without the walls:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:
"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."
If you use Martin Anstey's dating from "Romance of Bible Chronology" written
in 1914 that dates the 1st of Cyrus c. 455 BCE, then you will get the date
of 1346 BCE for the year of Jericho's overthrow by Joshua, which falls
within the archaeological range set by Kenyon. So this is good news for the
pro-Anstey pro-Biblicalists. But this, in turn, is very bad news for those
who don't follow Anstey, like Jehovah's witnesses, who have their own
timeline based on their own interpretation of the Bible who date the Exodus
in 1513 BCE and thus Jericho's fall 40 years later in 1473 BCE! There is
an archaeology and Bible timeline mismatch. In the meantime,
anti-Biblicalists wanting to believe the Bible is just non-historical and
mythical, completely ignore Kenyon's reference and claim there is a no
historical evidence for an LBA destruction by the Israelites, even though
Kenyon, an archaeologist, did find her way to decide that to the contrary,
and specifically so.
Result: The pro-Anstey pro-Biblicalists are quite happy with Kenyon and
find a comfort level confirmation for the dating and event of the fall of
Jericho in line with Kenyon's findings, but others must dismiss or minimize
her position if they need to establish their own dating (like JWs) or they
need to reassure themselves that nothing in the Bible is reliable history
and so Kenyon must be ignored or aggressively challenged here. All three
groups leave the room thinking all is well and continue their own subjective
view. Anti-Biblicalists thinking that the Bible and archaeology don't
mix, and pro-Anstey Biblicalists thinking archaeology and the Bible mix
perfectly well.
Thus there is a "gap" here. In perception, interpretation, etc. Not a
credibility gap, per se, just a gap in the non-absolute nature of Biblical
interpertation as well as archaeological interpretation. Which is why, as I
noted, though some claim archaeology is "science" it really isn't. It is
pseudo-science if that, with either side of the Bible historical debate
getting what they want from archaeology and being quite comfortable and
happy with those findings.
Lars
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
the 1950's to pretty much establish the timeline for the Israelites from the
XVIIIth Dynasty of Egypt down through into the Persian Period and the reign
of Darius II, the last Biblical reference from the OT to the ancient
timeline. But I wanted to note that there is a gap in the interpretation
of the evidence of those who are pro-Biblical and those decided
anti-Biblical. But that is only because of the nature of the evidence
itself and archaeology not being an absolute "science" though that term is
often applied to this field.
Absolute sciences are like math and astronomy, biology, etc. Archaeology is
not like those disciples. It is a pseudo-scientific field, sort of half way
between science and anthropology, with a couple of related absolute sciences
connected to it, such as ancient astronomy and RC14 dating, etc.
But of note, because there is a gap in how things are interpreted, both the
pro and anti-Biblicalist can find their own "comfort level" with the
identical evidence, since so much evidence needs interpretation and can be
subjective. Here are a few broad cases in point.
1. Kathleen Kenyon, a renown archaeologist, based on her digging up
Jericho, opined that the Israelites destroyed LBA Jericho between 1350-1325
BCE. Even though a respected archaeologist and quoted from now by many
others, that dating has not effected a focus on Amenhotep III in association
with the Exodus 40 years earlier. This dating, however, would automatically
redate Solomon into the early 9th century period. But this is not done.
Instead, conventional dating based upon the non-archaeological Assyrian
timeline fixed by a single eclipse occurring in 763 BCE is used to date
Solomon and then the Bible criticized for being revised. Pro-Biblicalists
who date Solomon and the Exodus in line with Kenyon's dating though, are
encouraged from the archaeological reference by Kenyon and other
archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein who date the buildings of Solmon to
the "early 9th century BCE."
Point being that depending on what you accept or reject as far as
archaeology goes, provides a comfort zone for continuing to accept or not
accept some things in the Bible as accurate history. Even though the
archaeological evidence is in the same in both cases.
So it is a subjective thing. Those anti-Biblicalists who need Solomon and
David to be a myth, ignore Kenyon's reference and date Solomon too early,
earlier than the evidence date him. Those who agree with Kenyon's dating
end up dating Solomon later, which does confirm Solomon was a great king and
built great buildings. Both groups go forth feeling content they have the
truth, but only because both choose to accept or reject certain
archaeological evidence. Which, of course, is their choice, but as a
result, you still have polarity on two sides of the fence.
The DIFFERENCE now is, though, that we have more archaeological data and
specifics. Even RC14 dating supplement archaeological findings to key
Biblical events, such as the fall of Jericho or when the major palaces were
built at Megiddo. Thus what I call the "archaeological timeline" is rather
set and consistent. But comparisons with the Bible's timeline varies based
on interpretation of both the secular timeline and/or the Biblical timeline,
meaning you get different results.
Subjectively, therefore, it is interesing that now the more specific
archaeological findings in place are starting to do more for confirming the
reality for pro-Biblicalists than before. That is what is significant.
That is, significant for those who have the archaeologically compatible
Biblical timeline.
Case in point, again, Kenyon. She dates the fall of Jericho by the
Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE, with or without the walls:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:
"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."
If you use Martin Anstey's dating from "Romance of Bible Chronology" written
in 1914 that dates the 1st of Cyrus c. 455 BCE, then you will get the date
of 1346 BCE for the year of Jericho's overthrow by Joshua, which falls
within the archaeological range set by Kenyon. So this is good news for the
pro-Anstey pro-Biblicalists. But this, in turn, is very bad news for those
who don't follow Anstey, like Jehovah's witnesses, who have their own
timeline based on their own interpretation of the Bible who date the Exodus
in 1513 BCE and thus Jericho's fall 40 years later in 1473 BCE! There is
an archaeology and Bible timeline mismatch. In the meantime,
anti-Biblicalists wanting to believe the Bible is just non-historical and
mythical, completely ignore Kenyon's reference and claim there is a no
historical evidence for an LBA destruction by the Israelites, even though
Kenyon, an archaeologist, did find her way to decide that to the contrary,
and specifically so.
Result: The pro-Anstey pro-Biblicalists are quite happy with Kenyon and
find a comfort level confirmation for the dating and event of the fall of
Jericho in line with Kenyon's findings, but others must dismiss or minimize
her position if they need to establish their own dating (like JWs) or they
need to reassure themselves that nothing in the Bible is reliable history
and so Kenyon must be ignored or aggressively challenged here. All three
groups leave the room thinking all is well and continue their own subjective
view. Anti-Biblicalists thinking that the Bible and archaeology don't
mix, and pro-Anstey Biblicalists thinking archaeology and the Bible mix
perfectly well.
Thus there is a "gap" here. In perception, interpretation, etc. Not a
credibility gap, per se, just a gap in the non-absolute nature of Biblical
interpertation as well as archaeological interpretation. Which is why, as I
noted, though some claim archaeology is "science" it really isn't. It is
pseudo-science if that, with either side of the Bible historical debate
getting what they want from archaeology and being quite comfortable and
happy with those findings.
Lars
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html